Posted on Aug 6, 2014
Is there such thing as interpreting regulations?
45.5K
61
60
5
5
0
Today I had a senior noncommissioned officer try to make an on the spot correction on my about my glasses. Being prepared for said situation because if past encounters with other members my unit I have the chapter of AR 670-1 with me. When I read that chapter to this NCO not even in my unit he responded with this " how I interpret 670-1 is that you can't wear those so take them off". My question/ theory is this. If it's an Army regulation and it's on paper not here say then there should be no interpreting needed, right?
Posted in these groups: 
Army Regulations
Army Regulations
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 17
19
17
2
I'm going to interpret the situation and not the regulation.
If you have been approached enough times about this subject that you felt the need to carry a copy of the regulation around with you; then deep down you probaly know that what you are wearing is wrong. It may not specifically say you are wrong or not permitted to wear the glasses, but that doesn't make it right or mean that you can.
Just because I can't find a regulation that says I can't crap in a sink; that doesn't mean I can.
If you have been approached enough times about this subject that you felt the need to carry a copy of the regulation around with you; then deep down you probaly know that what you are wearing is wrong. It may not specifically say you are wrong or not permitted to wear the glasses, but that doesn't make it right or mean that you can.
Just because I can't find a regulation that says I can't crap in a sink; that doesn't mean I can.
(19)
(2)
CPL Joseph Elinger
SPC Randy Torgerson
Like a Civilian publicly burning a Flag can be charged with "Arson?"
Like a Civilian publicly burning a Flag can be charged with "Arson?"
(0)
(0)
SPC Randy Torgerson
CPL Joseph Elinger - Depends on who's flag it is. If its yours, then the charge would just be unauthorized US flag destruction. If its someone else's flag, it could be arson and unauthorized US flag destruction. Depending on where and the reason, there could be other charges as well. Interpretation is the cornerstone to all of our laws. Some laws leave very little room for interpretation and others leave gaping holes for interpretation. That is why it is so important to elect officials who have common sense so that when they make laws or interpret laws, they do so with fairness and compassion and not for political or revengeful reasons.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
*completely not related to the actual question* (Sorry OP)..... but is anybody else experiencing dejavu with the whole "I carry a copy of AR 670-1 with me" and the response of "if you have to carry the reg with you to justify your action, you probably know you're wrong..."
I feel like this is the double buns thread all over again.
I feel like this is the double buns thread all over again.
(7)
(0)
4
4
0
SGT Perkins you know I am biased in my answer.....but too often people enforce "pet peeves" and not regulations. That's why we have so many problems in our Army.....a lot of Soldiers are confused as to what is right. So when SGT A says one thing and SGT B says something totally opposite ......confusion! What clears it THE REGULATION!
(4)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) usually, yes. But what about those times when it’s the regulation that’s unclear?
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) I have retired for a year now, but there are very few that do not have other regulations to support them. For instance the wear and appearance of the PT uniform....or about PT in general...there are about 3 references for it. If it isn't in one there is another one that should have it. I have seen so many people including CDRs who don't research regs. Read and take notes!
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) - I understand. They sent me to the glue farm several years ago.
And I get it. But there are certainly some vague, unclear portions in regulations that leave room for interpretation. (They’re written by people, who tend to make mistakes from time to time).
And I get it. But there are certainly some vague, unclear portions in regulations that leave room for interpretation. (They’re written by people, who tend to make mistakes from time to time).
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see), actually the reg doesn't say you are authorized to wear them. Ballistic eye protection needs to be on the APEL and the CDIs were replaced by the Crossbows.
However, to your question in the last sentence about it being on paper and not open to interpreting, you are correct to an extent (if you're going to use an AR as a defense, make sure you walk the path of the righteous on all aspects of the AR), in this case is it really worth the hassle?
However, to your question in the last sentence about it being on paper and not open to interpreting, you are correct to an extent (if you're going to use an AR as a defense, make sure you walk the path of the righteous on all aspects of the AR), in this case is it really worth the hassle?
PEO Soldier | Approved Eyewear
U.S. Army approved eyewear for ballistic protection.
(3)
(0)
COL Randall C.
SSG Joaquin Goicoechea, good to know about the FAQ (missed that last time I was looking it over), but still unsure about them being authorized (see below).
I was going to post a response in that sub-thread, but added it to this one.
I have an issue with the intent of your statement that 'leaders' will take the quick answer and won't bother looking deeper (I took no offense because I do not think you were targeting the comment to me or the LT, but rather to leaders in general). I don't think that's a problem limited to Officers/NCOs, but rather all individuals, especially when consulting differing information sources.
The problem usually occurs from poorly worded regs (when it says "issued by the Army", does that mean it must be on the clothing record or just have a NSN?) or if there is an external sources that provides amplifying information (Does a non-reg modify what's in an AR?).
Specific to the FAQ on the PEOs website, the AR says "currently authorized" but the FAQ says "previously authorized" are still 'good'. What does 'good' mean? Still 'authorized' for wear in the eyes of AR 670-1 or authorized to be used as MCEP? Assuming it can modify/expand on an AR, the FAQ has a difference between the same MCEP being 'authorized' and 'unauthorized' based on when they were bought. Does it matter (again, talking about the same model/manufacture)? How would a leader know the difference?
All above leaves it open for interpretation and logical arguments can be made either way up until the COC makes a decision on what their interpretation of it is.
However, I do agree with your view that the glasses wouldn't be authorized because the frame is not an acceptable color in garrison.
I was going to post a response in that sub-thread, but added it to this one.
I have an issue with the intent of your statement that 'leaders' will take the quick answer and won't bother looking deeper (I took no offense because I do not think you were targeting the comment to me or the LT, but rather to leaders in general). I don't think that's a problem limited to Officers/NCOs, but rather all individuals, especially when consulting differing information sources.
The problem usually occurs from poorly worded regs (when it says "issued by the Army", does that mean it must be on the clothing record or just have a NSN?) or if there is an external sources that provides amplifying information (Does a non-reg modify what's in an AR?).
Specific to the FAQ on the PEOs website, the AR says "currently authorized" but the FAQ says "previously authorized" are still 'good'. What does 'good' mean? Still 'authorized' for wear in the eyes of AR 670-1 or authorized to be used as MCEP? Assuming it can modify/expand on an AR, the FAQ has a difference between the same MCEP being 'authorized' and 'unauthorized' based on when they were bought. Does it matter (again, talking about the same model/manufacture)? How would a leader know the difference?
All above leaves it open for interpretation and logical arguments can be made either way up until the COC makes a decision on what their interpretation of it is.
However, I do agree with your view that the glasses wouldn't be authorized because the frame is not an acceptable color in garrison.
(1)
(0)
COL Randall C.
SSG Joaquin Goicoechea absolutely agree! As I said, I took no offense because I assumed you were speaking in general terms (plus I've not seen you be anything other than a professional on RP).
I guess I was coming at it from the other direction where I would always have to be the 'old man' that frequently had to tighten down on the guidance because the junior enlisted "reg warriors" wanted to spin their own interpretation of the regulations (it does get tiring after a while...)
You are absolutely correct in that our leaders at all levels do need to look deeper than "that's what I was told".
I guess I was coming at it from the other direction where I would always have to be the 'old man' that frequently had to tighten down on the guidance because the junior enlisted "reg warriors" wanted to spin their own interpretation of the regulations (it does get tiring after a while...)
You are absolutely correct in that our leaders at all levels do need to look deeper than "that's what I was told".
(1)
(0)
3
2
1
Army Regulations aren't up for interpretation. They mean what they say. However, that doesn't mean that they aren't often misunderstood. It is possible that you have misunderstood the regulation, or that he did. Maybe post the situation and the regulation in question and we can help you sort it out, or ask your SL/PSG their opinion.
(3)
(1)
SSG (Join to see)
SGT James Pefley,
I disagree. Up for interpretation would mean that there are a variety of right answers or meanings to this regulation and none are more right than the other. In this case, the regulation has a clear cut answer but was obviously misunderstood or read incorrectly by one or both parties. The regulation is set in stone and there is only one right answer here.
I disagree. Up for interpretation would mean that there are a variety of right answers or meanings to this regulation and none are more right than the other. In this case, the regulation has a clear cut answer but was obviously misunderstood or read incorrectly by one or both parties. The regulation is set in stone and there is only one right answer here.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Major,
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. From my understanding, and going by the definition, interpretation is explaining something to someone who doesn't understand in its original form. For instance, you may interpret a regulation to a soldier who doesn't understand it, but to interpret it you must first understand it in original form and convey its intent in your interpretation. Therefore, since you understand the regulations original intent you are not changing its intent but interpreting it into a form that others can better understand. In my opinion, Army Regulations have a clear cut intent, even if they are worded poorly and are hard to understand, and command, in their interpretation, should not be able to change that intent.
The OP makes a perfect case for this with his story. The SNCO's command may have "interpreted" the regulation in question one way and the OP's command another. Who is right, and who is wrong? Which soldier's command interpreted the author's regulation to his intent?
In the end I may have worded my sentence poorly and should have said that I do not think a regulations intent is up for interpretation.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. From my understanding, and going by the definition, interpretation is explaining something to someone who doesn't understand in its original form. For instance, you may interpret a regulation to a soldier who doesn't understand it, but to interpret it you must first understand it in original form and convey its intent in your interpretation. Therefore, since you understand the regulations original intent you are not changing its intent but interpreting it into a form that others can better understand. In my opinion, Army Regulations have a clear cut intent, even if they are worded poorly and are hard to understand, and command, in their interpretation, should not be able to change that intent.
The OP makes a perfect case for this with his story. The SNCO's command may have "interpreted" the regulation in question one way and the OP's command another. Who is right, and who is wrong? Which soldier's command interpreted the author's regulation to his intent?
In the end I may have worded my sentence poorly and should have said that I do not think a regulations intent is up for interpretation.
(0)
(0)
COL Randall C.
SSG (Join to see), actually 'interpret' is the appropriate word. ONE use of it is as you describe, but in the context that MAJ Carl Ballinger used it regarding the AR it is "to construe or understand in a particular way".
While the overall intent of many of the regulations are clear (for example, the clear intent/purpose of AR 670-1 is to prescribes DA's policy for the proper wear and appearance of Army uniforms and insignia), the poor or unclear language definitely leaves specifics up to interpretation in many cases.
While the overall intent of many of the regulations are clear (for example, the clear intent/purpose of AR 670-1 is to prescribes DA's policy for the proper wear and appearance of Army uniforms and insignia), the poor or unclear language definitely leaves specifics up to interpretation in many cases.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
On that note, if the language of a regulation has to be explained albeit only to put into common understandable language, it is being interpreted, such interpretations if not put up against the intent of the author are opinionated. Judging solely on the diversity of the answers of this thread are you implying that the majority of them are mislead due to their misreading of regulation, or are the regulations vague enough to allow for multiple correct answers?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
You cannot add nor take away from regulations. NCOs are to enforce regulations not interpret them. You came across a EGO driven knuckle head.
If your PLT SGT doesn't have an issue with your glasses, then tell your PLT SGT what happened and let them deal with the Big Head on a professional level. In my 20 years, I had a few of those conversations. Nobody messed with my Soldiers but me, the HAMFIC.
If your PLT SGT doesn't have an issue with your glasses, then tell your PLT SGT what happened and let them deal with the Big Head on a professional level. In my 20 years, I had a few of those conversations. Nobody messed with my Soldiers but me, the HAMFIC.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I've been on both sides of this sort of issue on occasion.
Let me start by saying that there are almost no regulations that don't require interpretation -- most are clear enough for normal situations, but it is very rare that a regulation is so detailed that it covers all situations.
My military career spanned 45 years with the army, 17 in uniform and 28 as a DA civilian. Most of that time, both in and out of uniform, interpreting regulations was a specific part of my job -- as a Training NCO, as an Operations Sergeant, as an advisor to NG units, as a Training Developer, and as an Administrative Officer. Most "interpreting" consisted of reading the regulation (ALL of it, and related regs) to advise commanders on what the regs actually said. Occasionally my task was to find a way to interpret a reg to support what the commander wanted to do. Sometimes that was impossible, but the truth is that I was damn good at it, which is why I spent so much of my career in those kinds of jobs. I've been retired for a decade and there are still regulations and policies that include text I personally authored regardless of whose name is on the signature block.
Since you chose not to give any sort of explanation, I can't say whether you are right or wrong in YOUR INTERPRETATION of AR 670-1. It could be that you fall into some situation not covered precisely in the regulation and you are choosing to interpret something in the reg (or the lack of something in the reg) the way you want to. It is also possible that you actually fall into some odd quirk in the regulation.
I strongly suspect that you are simply lying to yourself about "interpreting" the regulation.
AR 670-1 specifically requires glasses to be "Conservative" and NOT be "trendy or have lenses or frames with conspicuous initials, designs, or other adornments" -- words like conservative, trendy, and conspicuous all require interpretation and it seems likely that YOUR interpretation of those words is at odds with the interpretations of many others.
There is very little in AR 670-1 Paragraph 3-10 that could reasonably support the sort of "I'm right and I can prove it in the reg" that you seem to be trying to pull off. Really only subparagraph a(4) lends itself to that sort of "see I told you so" situation.
Of course, you could always tell us what the specific problem really is...
Let me start by saying that there are almost no regulations that don't require interpretation -- most are clear enough for normal situations, but it is very rare that a regulation is so detailed that it covers all situations.
My military career spanned 45 years with the army, 17 in uniform and 28 as a DA civilian. Most of that time, both in and out of uniform, interpreting regulations was a specific part of my job -- as a Training NCO, as an Operations Sergeant, as an advisor to NG units, as a Training Developer, and as an Administrative Officer. Most "interpreting" consisted of reading the regulation (ALL of it, and related regs) to advise commanders on what the regs actually said. Occasionally my task was to find a way to interpret a reg to support what the commander wanted to do. Sometimes that was impossible, but the truth is that I was damn good at it, which is why I spent so much of my career in those kinds of jobs. I've been retired for a decade and there are still regulations and policies that include text I personally authored regardless of whose name is on the signature block.
Since you chose not to give any sort of explanation, I can't say whether you are right or wrong in YOUR INTERPRETATION of AR 670-1. It could be that you fall into some situation not covered precisely in the regulation and you are choosing to interpret something in the reg (or the lack of something in the reg) the way you want to. It is also possible that you actually fall into some odd quirk in the regulation.
I strongly suspect that you are simply lying to yourself about "interpreting" the regulation.
AR 670-1 specifically requires glasses to be "Conservative" and NOT be "trendy or have lenses or frames with conspicuous initials, designs, or other adornments" -- words like conservative, trendy, and conspicuous all require interpretation and it seems likely that YOUR interpretation of those words is at odds with the interpretations of many others.
There is very little in AR 670-1 Paragraph 3-10 that could reasonably support the sort of "I'm right and I can prove it in the reg" that you seem to be trying to pull off. Really only subparagraph a(4) lends itself to that sort of "see I told you so" situation.
Of course, you could always tell us what the specific problem really is...
(0)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
LTC Jason Mackay - In all my time in and around the military, I have only seen one instance where a soldier needed glasses and the Army refused to issue him glasses. He went through basic while I was the unit Training NCO. The Army refused to issue him glasses because his vision was so bad that they could not correct his vision to acceptable standard even with glasses. BUT despite actually being legally blind this young man was in the Army.
We tried to get him discharged but he didn't want out and he had an approved enlistment waiver for his vision. Everyone figured that whoever approved the waiver misread the application but the waiver was valid so we couldn't force him out on a medical. He had a great attitude and did most of the training really well.
Not surprisingly no one wanted to take him to the rifle range. We tried to get him a training waiver to graduate basic without firing the rifle, but headquarters wouldn't approve a waiver to completely skip firing. They waived rifle qualification but he still had to complete "familiarization" which included firing 10 rounds on a rifle range. His drill sergeants piled up two stacks of sandbags with a narrow slit between them to ensure that the rifle was pointed down the center of the range. He fired his 10 rounds and graduated from basic training. As I recall, he went directly to some unit for OJT as a cook.
We tried to get him discharged but he didn't want out and he had an approved enlistment waiver for his vision. Everyone figured that whoever approved the waiver misread the application but the waiver was valid so we couldn't force him out on a medical. He had a great attitude and did most of the training really well.
Not surprisingly no one wanted to take him to the rifle range. We tried to get him a training waiver to graduate basic without firing the rifle, but headquarters wouldn't approve a waiver to completely skip firing. They waived rifle qualification but he still had to complete "familiarization" which included firing 10 rounds on a rifle range. His drill sergeants piled up two stacks of sandbags with a narrow slit between them to ensure that the rifle was pointed down the center of the range. He fired his 10 rounds and graduated from basic training. As I recall, he went directly to some unit for OJT as a cook.
(0)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
MSG Thomas Currie wow. Was that early VOLAR days?
Cooks need to be able to shoot. Had a cook in a Forward Support Company in Afghanistan run out of the MKT during a complex attack on the front gate of the COP, engage a suicide bomber who breached the gate and take him down with a head shot, saving a bunch of guys in the unit.
Cooks need to be able to shoot. Had a cook in a Forward Support Company in Afghanistan run out of the MKT during a complex attack on the front gate of the COP, engage a suicide bomber who breached the gate and take him down with a head shot, saving a bunch of guys in the unit.
(0)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
LTC Jason Mackay - It was some time between 1973 and 1975. There was an uptick in enlistments after the end of US presence in Vietnam. This young soldier was from upstate New York and even was receiving a disability check for being legally blind. He could see reasonably well close up with his civilian glasses but only in a very narrow cone exactly in front of him. I always wondered about the recruiter who signed him up and the staff officer who approved the waiver. We tried to get him discharged but couldn't because he had the approved waiver. I'll be perfectly honest, we were content to ship him off to a unit and let it be their problem.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I find some of the comments in this thread amusing. Bottom line regulations tells you what is to be done, what can’t be done, what can be done, and sometimes how to do it. They can’t and don’t cover all situations. The best of things is to know the regulations, and uniformity enforce them as a leader. Research if you are not sure before you act. What regulations don’t cover, is left up to the judgement of the chain of command and the situation at the time. Poor judgement by the chain of command can be a moral buster. Been there seen that. And yes there are times when regulations conflict with each other or are just plain foolish. Again this is the time when good judgement comes in play. There is no time to debate when lives are involved.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Having had to wear prescription sunglasses for years, I have had had to correct more than one individual who said you can't wear them in formation...unless prescribed.
(0)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
True enough, but many people fail to comprehend that just because sunglasses are prescription does not in itself make them authorized in formation. Many people who wear glasses also have prescription sunglasses but that isn't the same as having a medical condition that requires wearing sunglasses.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SGT Perkins,
We cannot fully answer your question, I get your side of it, but, what glasses were you wearing? If we knew that it would help us understand first of all 1. if you were correct and the NCO was wrong, 2. If the NCO was correct and you were wrong.
That said, generally speaking regulations are not interpreted, however a Commander can add to a regulation with regard to a unit standard which is more specific than an Army standard, but cannot reduce the standard set forth in regulation without exception to policy.
We cannot fully answer your question, I get your side of it, but, what glasses were you wearing? If we knew that it would help us understand first of all 1. if you were correct and the NCO was wrong, 2. If the NCO was correct and you were wrong.
That said, generally speaking regulations are not interpreted, however a Commander can add to a regulation with regard to a unit standard which is more specific than an Army standard, but cannot reduce the standard set forth in regulation without exception to policy.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google